Following an interview with Father Claude Lacaille, P.M.É., published in the April 23, 2011, edition of Proximo, entitled “Crise chez Développement et Paix : des catholiques québécois en ont ras-le-bol” (“Crisis at Development and Peace: Québec Catholics are fed up”), the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops wishes to provide further information.

COMMENTARY BY THE CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
REGARDING AN INTERVIEW BY PROXIMOWITH FATHER CLAUDE LACAILLE, P.M.É.

In its edition of 23 April 2011, Proximo published an interview with Father Claude Lacaille, P.M.É., entitled “Crise chez Développement et Paix : des catholiques québécois en ont ras-le-bol” (http://www.radiovm.com/Proximo/Nouvelles.aspx?/=8896). In the opening paragraph, Proximo stated that accusations are being made which “are taken seriously by some Bishops” [“visiblement prises au sérieux par quelques évêques”], while Father Lacaille goes further by suggesting that the Bishops of Canada are “prostrate” [“il y a ‘l’à-plat-ventrisme’ chez les évêques”], “frightened” [“Arrêtez d’avoir peur!”] and “manipulated” [“Il ne faut pas se laisser manipuler”] because of an “Internet mafia” [“une espèce de mafia … des sites Internet”].

The article appears to originate in reaction to a recent decision to cancel speaking engagements in Ontario that the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP) had planned for the Director of the Centre PRODH in Mexico.

And it all started because of a tip received by Socon or Bust. But let’s not quibble…carry on…

The following brief chronology will clarify several aspects about this particular point: In spring 2009, a Committee of Inquiry from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) had found that the Centre PRODH was one of several Mexican groups which was “imprudent in signing a United Nations report on the human rights situation in Mexico that included orientations not in accord with Catholic teaching.”

However, earlier this year, because another resource person for Share Lent could not get a visa, Development and Peace staff instead invited the Director of the Centre PRODH to serve as a last-minute substitute speaker.

Why was Development & Peace permitted to invite a speaker from a groupwhich had been found to be problematic by the CCCB, in the first place? Don’t you talk to one another? Just who is in charge, here, anyway?

Once this invitation became known, questions and complaints began to be raised. After careful reflection, the Archbishop of Ottawa and the Executive Director of Development and Peace mutually decided to cancel the speaking engagements, so that the controversy not distract from the Share Lent program. Subsequently, Church authorities in Mexico confirmed they have serious concerns about the Centre PRODH. This information was sent to the attention of the CCCB General Secretary, who necessarily shared it with all the Bishops, including the Archbishop of Ottawa, and also with Development and Peace.

The problem here is one of mistrust and the bad faith exercised by the Episcopacy and the CCCB in the Development & Peace abortion scandal. This garbage has been going on for over two years now, and there has been ABSOLUTELY NO CHALLENGE to the accuracy of either Socon or Bust’s posts or LifeSiteNews’ coverage about this issue. Just blanket and vapid denials with not a single real interaction with the evidence by either the Canadian hierarchy or the representatives of Development & Peace. There has only been denial (even recently), andslander, and general obfuscation. It’s a disgrace. The only thing more pathetic about their reaction is that they think they’re fooling us with their super-duper communication strategies. Guys, the jig is up. The game is over. The whistle has blown. Put.Down.The.Football.

Thus, Father Lacaille is incorrect in stating that the Centre PRODH had earlier been absolved by the CCCB [“a été lavé de tout soupçon”]. Furthermore, whatever questions or comments from one or other website or blog, the important issue for the Bishops of Canada and for Development and Peace is that the Centre PRODH does not have the full support of the local Bishop in Mexico.

Hurray! Two years later after the report appeared, and only after much effort and “polarizing efforts”. With such a rapid reaction, our pro-abort enemies must be really worried!

This leads to the underlying issue raised by Father Lacaille and Proximo. Father Lacaille asserts there are “Canadian Bishops who want Development and Peace to die” [“certains évêques souhaitent la mort de D&P”] but that they should not be allowed to “destroy it” [“Ne détruisez pas ça”]. To address this charge, it is important to distinguish between two different although important issues which unfortunately Father Lacaille manages to confuse: the difficulties and challenges facing not only the Church but all our society because of some extremely polarizing voices that are using the social media, and the current efforts being made by Development and Peace to ensure that its central focus and purpose remains human development.

But…uh….that’s the question at hand, isn’t it? Since when can the contraception and abortion advocacy of Development & Peace’s50 anti-life partners(and that’s only what we know of) be considered “human development”? Only in the most perverse and wicked sense. And as for “polarizing efforts”…here we go again with wimpy descriptors. Jesus was polarizing too, or did the CCCB not get the memo (Cf.Matthew 10:34-36)? We wouldn’t have our Catholic religion if Jesus wasn’t “polarizing”.

Ask the religious leaders about their complaint to Pilate about why Christ should be put to death: “That Jesus! He’s such a polarizing figure to Israel!”

Socon or Bust is all for “polarizing” abortion from Catholic money, even if we have to rattle comfortable cages to do it. The bishops of this country and the social justice clique have been swimming in lukewarm waters for over 40 years. It’s time to drain the tub or turn on the cold water.

The communications challenge will be taken up later in this commentary, in light of the following considerations about questions concerning CCODP itself and which especially preoccupy Proximo and Father Lacaille. Development and Peace was founded by the Bishops of Canada in response to Pope Paul VI’s 1967 Encyclical Populorum Progressio: On the Development of Peoples. This theme was later taken up and developed further by Pope John Paul II, and more recently given new force by Pope Benedict XVI in his Encyclical Caritas in Veritate: On Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth. With its vision that “Openness to life is at the centre of true development” (no. 28), the Encyclical is recognized by CCODP as well as by the Bishops of Canada as a key opportunity to reaffirm and re-energize Development and Peace.

You’ve been re-energizing yourselves for over two years now, while the Marxists at Development & Peace continue to fund pro-abort groups with our money to this very day.

Rather than the accusations being made against Development and Peace by a few websites, it is the Encyclical’s holistic vision of human development which is front and centre of the reflections by the Bishops of Canada on Development and Peace. Already during their 2009 Plenary Assembly, the Bishops had noted their close bond with CCODP, expressed their profound desire for it to continue its mission, stated their appreciation for its excellent work over the years, and confirmed their intention of collaborating in its renewal as well as in the review of its mandate in the light of Caritas in Veritate. For these reasons, at their 2010 Plenary Assembly the Bishops decided that instead of an Ad Hoc Committee on Development and Peace, the importance of the agency and its mission warranted establishing a new CCCB Standing Committee. Its purpose is to advise both the Conference and CCODP, providing them “a forum to share information and collaborate more closely on achieving their common goal, which is to help the world’s most vulnerable persons.” The above facts are all documented on the CCCB website, www.cccb.ca.

Someone should tell that to the unborn child in the Global South which is being ripped apart in their mother’s womb as you read this…in part because of Canadian Catholic money, financed by D&P’s “excellent work”. Would the bishops be making such laudatory statements if D&P was funding partners who peddled child porn, human trafficking, or capital punishment? Methinks if that were the case, it would take one phone call and about 5 minutes to wrap up the “controversy”, not the 10 years it’s going to take before this dung gets shovelled to where it belongs. Bishop Lahey got sacked for child porn. It didn’t take two years for the bishops to make up their minds about that one.

Thus, the Bishops of the whole country, from Quebec as well as the rest of Canada, from both the French Sector and the English Sector, have been involved in this reaffirmation of Development and Peace and its mission. The Standing Committee itself is currently composed of two Bishops from Quebec (the Most Reverend André Gaumond, Archbishop of Sherbrooke, and the Most Reverend Pierre-André Fournier, Archbishop of Rimouski), and two from English-speaking Canada (the Most Reverend John Boissonneau, Auxiliary Bishop of Toronto, and the Most Reverend Fred Henry, Bishop of Calgary). In addition, the Committee is advised by two Bishops appointed by the Conference as its representatives on the Development and Peace National Council: the Most Reverend Claude Champagne, O.M.I., Bishop of Edmundston, and the Most Reverend Richard Grecco, Bishop of Charlottetown. Over the coming months, as already agreed by the D&P National Council, these two Bishops will also become official members of the Standing Committee.

In addition to his interview with Proximo, Father Lacaille has been circulating letters criticizing the Bishops of Canada for insisting with Development and Peace that local Bishops in the Global South are to be asked to advise D&P about its projects in their dioceses. In the past, the “nihil obstat” of the local Bishop often accompanied a project request, but was not an essential part of the D&P approval process. However, it is not only the right of a local Bishop to be consulted, it is also a matter of common courtesy. Any Canadian Bishop would certainly expect the same from an outside Catholic agency wishing to work in his diocese. Why would dioceses in the Global South not be treated the same way as D&P partners? In cases of emergencies or other urgent situations when it may be simpler or faster, the CCCB is prepared for Development and Peace instead to seek the advice of the local Conference of Bishops or that country’s Caritas agency. Whatever the source of this regional input from a Church authority, it assures Development and Peace as well as all its supporters that the project will involve some form of local support. It means that Development and Peace knows it can count on the openness of the local Church authorities for the project in question. It testifies to Canadian Catholics and to the diocese in the Global South that they are truly united in faith and solidarity. As well, as Development and Peace staff have already pointed out, this involvement by the local Bishops in the Global South also becomes an important opportunity for CCODP to engage all the Bishops of Canada in what Pope Benedict calls “integral human development”.

Really? There goes 90% of Development & Peace’s partners. Good luck finding D&P Marxists when all (or close to all) of them favour abortion. The CCCB doesn’t get it. The current orientation of Development & Peace will have to change if they need the local bishop’s permission. That’s why they never sought it out as a required step in choosing their partners. The PRODH controversy with Arriaga only proves this, as the CCCB even admitted above: “Church authorities in Mexico confirmed they have serious concerns about the Centre PRODH.”They knew the game. And now the game has changed drastically. That’s assuming, of course, the local bishop is not into liberation theology.

In its April 23 article, both Proximo and Father Lacaille criticize certain “Anglophone Catholic blogs” [“des blogues catholiques anglophones”] and “Canadian websites” [“certains sites Internet canadiens”]. Whether or not the criticisms they make are correct, it must be admitted there is a major communications challenge today facing all the Church and society. The “social media” offer new and exciting ways to share information and exchange viewpoints. But like all forms of communication, whether socially “conservative” or “liberal”, they can also manipulate and mislead, facilitating simplistic and even erroneous conclusions.

Really? Why don’t you come on this blog and challenge my assessment of the situation instead of just cruising like you normally do? The CCCB certainly spent a lot of time cruising Socon or Bust today. No one is interested in assertions about something being “simplistic” or “erroneous”. In the blogophere, you need to put up or shut up, if you make the outrageous and slanderous accusations that you just did.

The Bishops of Canada are aware of both the potential and the dangers. At their 2009 Plenary Assembly, there was a special evening session on the pastoral implications of blogs and Internet sites, both in terms of the new opportunities they can provide, and in view of their radicalizing and at times divisive impact on social as well as ecclesial discourse and relations.

Does that mean that the truth “polarized” some bishops? Good. This sham unity needs some polarizing. Benedict’s on board. When is the CCCB going to get with the program?

Because of this, the CCCB is now working to establish a more constructive climate in which it is hoped it will be possible to dialogue with at least one or other of the groups involved.

You know where to reach me. But don’t come with flowers only. If you’re not prepared to deal with the truth, then don’t bother calling…because it’s just going to end badly.

A major part of the answer, however, is simply for Church institutions and agencies to be more effective in their own use of social media, and so ensure space not only for diverse Catholic voices but also for the Church’s teaching authority – namely, the Pope and the Bishops. For this reason, the CCCB will soon be embarking on a new approach to communications and information technology. More will be said about these plans over the coming weeks.

That’s great. Another Facebook account. We don’t need more technology. We don’t need more bells and whistles and image. We need more truth and repentance and courage and obedience to the Church’s teaching by the bishops of this country.

Oh, and as if it needs pointing out but….there are likely dozens and dozens of groups whose identities Development & Peace refuses to release. Is this what the CCCB considers a transparent and honest policy in their development and aid work? Why don’t you all take a remedial course in Catholic Morality 101, instead of learning about the latest tech gadget and how to spread a largely disappointing and pathetic press release?

Contrary to the accusations by Father Lacaille and carried in the Proximo interview, it is clear that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is endeavouring in every way to see that the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace is reaffirmed and re-energized, and so will be able to continue the good work it does in today’s world.

A few strident pro-D&P priests shriek because a few principled bishops finally take a stand against D&P’s pro-abortion partners. The CCCB then bends over backwards trying to placate them.

All the while, the CCCB does not even remotely seem to consider pondering the possibility of perhaps looking into taking what might be construed as a more pastoral approach towards those of us in the pew who are, frankly, scandalized by the fact that the hard-earned cash of Catholics has been used to promote abortion.

Their drivel is insulting to our intelligence and is unworthy of their office as heralds of the faith. The jobs of the bishops is to save souls. It seems to me they are more concerned about saving face.

There is no social justice in abortion. Not for the child, not for the mother, not for the nation.

I am glad for the steps the Bishops are taking, even if there are still questions. I encourage them to continue to move in this direction. It’s not a question of whether the glass is half-full or half-empty, but is it being drained or filled. It seems to me it is being filled.

Wow! This commentary contains so much good news for our side, but I think the wishy-washy political language makes it hard for us to see what they’re saying. Here’s what I took from it:

1. The CCCB has officially admitted that the Mexican Bishops are opposed to PRODH.
2. The CCCB has officially decided that groups in the global south will not be supported by D&P unless they have the support of the local bishop.
3. The memo criticizes Fr. Lacaille.

As expected, they don’t intend to raze D&P to the ground and start over. I certainly never expected that. But this memo is a huge change from the denial that we heard two years ago. It gives me a lot of hope.

While there is some minor improvements, I wouldn’t put too much stock in that press release.

The CCCB only moved because we moved them. They are not being pro-active. They are being RE-active. They react to the most current D&P scandal instead of taking the bull by the horns and ending this sham. Part of the problem is that we are so used to them doing nothing, anything they do – even as a reaction – is seen by us as “good news”. But that’s not a normal thing for an organization that should be at the front and center of resolving this issue. It’s just not. They manage by crisis instead of addressing the crisis. They also try and play the middle. You know, the old “we can’t be too far left or too far right. We have to be moderate.” That’s the tune that’s being sung now, which is, of course, bunk. Instead of obeying Church teaching on abortion and having that teaching impact their pastoral approach, it’s more of the same politics. Fr. Lacaille holds numerous positions which call into question whether he is even Catholic anymore (http://www.catholic-legate.com/?p=14532), but you know, the reality is that the “political spectrum” in the Church has shifted. The “Catholic Left” is not even Catholic anymore.

And, of course, it does not excuse their outrageous comments (“misleading”, “manipulative”, “radicalizing”) in this press release which are likely directed at Socon or Bust. Why don’t they come on here and tell us what justification they have for saying these things? You just can’t throw out these accusations while having no evidence for them. This isn’t the 60s anymore where we can just “take their word for it”. Those days are long gone.

If you have something to say these days, you’d better be prepared to come with the evidence to back it up. Generalities and blanket condemnations don’t cut it the “social media”.

Hi John,
You should be so proud to have gotten that reaction from them.
You’ve made the policy of “never criticizing anyone” backfire on the liberals, and it has to come to an end now.
By provoking them to this kind of reaction, it has forced these issues into the open, where they should be, and where they’ll have to be finally addressed according to church teaching.
Good work!
Neil

You fall into the same trap. There is no person named CCCB. Statements from the “CCCB” are statements made by bureaucrats in that organization, who may not even be bishops. No bishop can lay aside his personal responsibility in such discussions. The episcopal organizations have no authority in the Church. No bishop is subject to them. +Church law is not made by vote.

Thus, when a document is issued in the name of a bureaucracy, look to see who signed it. If there is no signature, the document is invalid. When a priest says that he speaks in the name of “the bishops”, ask him which one. It is surprising how quickly he will run for cover.